Are you serious? The guy is a hack, go watch the Fr. Hans debate for proof. All he knows how to do is debate against his old denomination, Baptist, and has absolutely no knowledge on history, let alone even use correct methodology to events in antiquity, and his tone and bravado are extremely immature. It's like a guy trying to sell Hostess cupcakes, and only knows one line about his product and nothing else.

Seriously watch the first video, he gets decimated and exposed for the fraud he is. In fact if you pay careful attention not only does he edit the clip near the end, but he loses his temper quite often when he is up against a wall and cannot refute something. It wouldn't matter how much evidence you provide for a miracle claim in front of him, which hypothetically it outweighs the opposition, he would still reject it based on ignorance.

I had quite a good laugh at this debate, and it further proves my point that debating with atheists is almost an entire waste of time. They will never stay on point.

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

There's a reason that true intellectual atheists are dwindling in number and we're seeing a rise in Theism - atheism lacks a sufficient intellectual backing.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

There's a reason that true intellectual atheists are dwindling in number and we're seeing a rise in Theism - atheism lacks a sufficient intellectual backing.

theo forgive me for playing devil's advocate, I do so to learn more and that's not to say I do not trust you, I do, but I'd like to know what makes you believe that we are seeing a rise in Theism?

Let me raise a few questions. Is it practical to say that atheism has exhausted itself? What I mean by this is every single atheistic argument has one way or another been refuted in history. The great atheist philosophers have come and gone, now it has been belittled to attacking religion from an apologetic perspective instead of getting to the heart of the matter. It's funny because we'll see secular stuff, like The God Who Wasn't There "documentary", and the arguments they raise are nothing new and have been debunked hundreds of years ago.

If I may be so bold to say this, but the best cases for atheism are the Christians that actually believe but only pretend they are atheists. At the same time too not only the greatest Christian thinkers build the best cases for these arguments but they also demolished them by refuting each of them.

The problem I also have with atheists is that in order to debate what you are saying they will constantly change their position; their own beliefs of what they hold are on the shifting sands and not grounded by anything but their own thought processes. And then they'll try their best to point out logical fallacies and hide behind this notion that they don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. Atheism by definition is the rejection of the belief about God. That is a positive claim about the belief in God, you reject it therefore you must demonstrably prove why this rejection is a valid viewpoint. They say the burden of proof is on the theist, quite the contrary because I can say God exists but is hidden in mystery. If we could explain God in our logical minds, that wouldn't be a god. Why would God by His essence intervene in our lives and show us His presence? Why would a perfect being create beings in the image and likeness of Himself reveal Himself on a constant basis because that would contradict the very meaning of us being in the image and likeness of God, we instead become the image and likeness of a robot where the only choice that we have is to submit to God. That is not a perfect being because why would a perfect being have a creation that merely is subject to His own whims without the choice to do so. As mina's sig also says vain existence cannot exist.

I guess my rejection of naturalism actually is one based more on this instinctual awareness that their is more to life than we think it may not. Why do atheists continue to diminish the sacredness of life, esp love? Like love is just these chemical reactions that mean nothing in its conclusion. My impulse to have sex with my girlfriend is part of my biology and make up as a homo sapien, but I never choose to have a meaning as to why I want to have sex with my girlfriend. Ortho-Cat had this sig once where it said "If the brain was so simple we could understand it; we would be so simple we could not." There's truth to that. Think about a creature that does not have eyes, it would not actually distinguish what is light from darkness. Yet light and darkness exists outside of what the creature can say. Why can't the soul and the spirit inside of us be outside of that realm as well?

Atheism necessarily sees life as nothing more than materialism, as matter. And so if the atheist has any claim to morality he has to draw that morality from somewhere besides his own atheism. Since atheism since it's materialistic basis has no grounds for morality. Now the morality they derive from society is from the Christian tradition. There's a difference between atheistic materialism and truth might come out of an area outside of your own genes.

That's enough for this evening, I'm off to bed.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2011, 06:42:20 AM by Aposphet »

Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

theo forgive me for playing devil's advocate, I do so to learn more and that's not to say I do not trust you, I do, but I'd like to know what makes you believe that we are seeing a rise in Theism?

Let me raise a few questions. Is it practical to say that atheism has exhausted itself? What I mean by this is every single atheistic argument has one way or another been refuted in history. The great atheist philosophers have come and gone, now it has been belittled to attacking religion from an apologetic perspective instead of getting to the heart of the matter. It's funny because we'll see secular stuff, like The God Who Wasn't There "documentary", and the arguments they raise are nothing new and have been debunked hundreds of years ago.

The conversion of Antony Flew from atheism to theism/Deism last decade signaled a growing trend in academic philosophy; theism was (is) not only becoming more and more palatable as an explanation, but was becoming more and more convincing.

I wish I could remember the citation, but there was an article in a peer reviewed journal written by an atheistic philosopher who lamented the fact that in recent years, more than half of his students in each class have been theists of some sort (with nearly a quarter being Christians). Michael Ruse has, in closed circles, admitted that atheism is becoming less and less tenable as an intellectual position in the academy, and his debates against theists shows that he treats theism as a legitimate belief.

Many of the left over elements of atheism are, as you appropriately point out, simply attacks against religion without proffering any evidence for atheism. Rather, the 'New Atheists' are big on bravado, but short on substance. They attack the God of the Bible as being egotistical and genocidal, but when asked to give us an objective standard for why such actions should be universally rejected, they look at you like you're crazy and say only a madman would need such standards. In other words, they dodge the question. They attempt to live under a Judeo-Christian meta-ethic (where ethics are absolute), but then fail to provide any reason how naturalism could account for objective standards or absolute ethics. What's worse is they reject any theistic claim outright, no matter how solid it is, either due to some bias against God or because they're logical positivists (having apparently missed the memo that logical positivism died in the 1970's due to its self-refuting nature).

Quote

The problem I also have with atheists is that in order to debate what you are saying they will constantly change their position; their own beliefs of what they hold are on the shifting sands and not grounded by anything but their own thought processes. And then they'll try their best to point out logical fallacies and hide behind this notion that they don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. Atheism by definition is the rejection of the belief about God. That is a positive claim about the belief in God, you reject it therefore you must demonstrably prove why this rejection is a valid viewpoint. They say the burden of proof is on the theist, quite the contrary because I can say God exists but is hidden in mystery. If we could explain God in our logical minds, that wouldn't be a god. Why would God by His essence intervene in our lives and show us His presence? Why would a perfect being create beings in the image and likeness of Himself reveal Himself on a constant basis because that would contradict the very meaning of us being in the image and likeness of God, we instead become the image and likeness of a robot where the only choice that we have is to submit to God. That is not a perfect being because why would a perfect being have a creation that merely is subject to His own whims without the choice to do so. As mina's sig also says vain existence cannot exist.

The whole idea of a "burden of proof" is a little absurd to me, because it allows one side to be lazy and skeptical while the other side does all the work. In my opinion, when you have two competing metaphysical claims (or simply two claims) where one or the other necessarily has to be true, the burden of proof falls on both sides. In a specific debate, the burden of proof rests upon who is the "attacker" and who is the "defender." If I say that atheism is untenable, then I now have the burden of proof. If I say that theism is tenable, I merely need to prove that theism is logically coherent and therefore could be true. If someone says that theism is false and there is no God, the burden of proof is on him. Before they say, "So if I say there isn't an invisible gnome in your backyard, the proof is on me to prove as such?" My answer would be, "yes."

My guess is that the New Atheism is an act of desperation, despite all its triumphalism.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

Rather, the 'New Atheists' are big on bravado, but short on substance. ... They attempt to live under a Judeo-Christian meta-ethic (where ethics are absolute), but then fail to provide any reason how naturalism could account for objective standards or absolute ethics.

This isn't always the case. Dawkins has embraced Mackie's position that there are no objective moral values.

Rather, the 'New Atheists' are big on bravado, but short on substance. ... They attempt to live under a Judeo-Christian meta-ethic (where ethics are absolute), but then fail to provide any reason how naturalism could account for objective standards or absolute ethics.

This isn't always the case. Dawkins has embraced Mackie's position that there are no objective moral values.

He has embraced it, but then uses objective moral values to judge Scripture and Christians. That's the point I was making - if there are no objective moral values, then whence his complaints? If there are objective moral values, then whence his atheism? He can't have both.

Sam Harris recently published a book in which he attempts to show "how science can determine human values".

Right, and this is a view that has been expressed numerous times and actually failed in the 1960's and 70's (mostly because it inevitably leads to subjectivity in all things or requires one to drop a naturalistic stance). Harris is simply revising the "Chick Tract" version of it, a simplified version that is so silly hardly anyone in academia will waste time responding to it while the masses suffer from Harris' ignorance. I do not advocate the academic's actions, but Harris' position is one of absurdity and that will ultimately fail under any scrutiny.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus

My guess is that the New Atheism is an act of desperation, despite all its triumphalism.

So are we at the end of the road with atheism then? Or will the secular society prevail like it has in Western Europe?

We're at a crossroads with atheism. I think what we'll see more and more are people who are metaphysical agnostics (who claim no knowledge on if there is a supreme being, a God, or anything of the sort), but will live "spiritual" lives acting as though there are objective moral values, even though those moral values will be seriously skewed. It really is a form of paganism, where the human spirit is worshiped as a god and they take on the semblance of spirituality, but ignore the true God.

Logged

“Wherefore, then, death approaches, gulps down the bait of the body, and is pierced by the hook of the divinity. Then, having tasted of the sinless and life-giving body, it is destroyed and gives up all those whom it had swallowed down of old." - St. John of Damascus